Casalini v Alexander Wolf & Son

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Casalini v Alexander Wolf & Son 2012 NY Slip Op 31900(U) July 12, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 102184/2010 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 711912012 ,a,\. [* 1] I SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY SALIANN SCARPULLA PART Js PRESENT: Justice Index Number : 102184/2010 CASALlNI , MICHAEL vs. ALEXANDER WOLF & SON SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 INDEX NO. MOTION DATE MOTION SE9. NO. SUMMARY JUDGMENT The followlng papers, numbered Ito Notice of MotlonlOrder to Show Cause Answerlng Affidavits r? 1 , were read on thls motlon tolfor - Amdavlta - Exhlblts IW s ) . IW a ) . IW s ) . - Exhibits Replylng Affidavit8 Upon the foregoing papen, it is ordered that thls motlon Is ! k i d e d per the memorandum decision dated '7 L t / 1 wh'kh disposes of motion sequence(s) no. 0 0 1 ..................................................................... 0 CASE DISPOSED CHECK A3 APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: GRANTED 0DENIED CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ nSEITLE ORDER 1. CHECK ONE: 2. 3. 0DO NOT POST NON-FINAL PlSP~slTlON 0GRANTED IN PART 1 OTHER 7 0SUBMIT ORDER [I FIDUCIARY APPOlNTMENt O'dEFERENCE [* 2] Tndcs No.: 102184/2010 Submission Datc: 03/21/20 12 1 [* 3] A1,EXANT)TK WOT,F &L SON a Division of A. W.&S. C ONS I RI JC I TONCT C)., INC. slhln A1,I:XANDER WOI ,f& SON d k l a A . W.&S. CONS T RIJC TIONCO., INC., Indm No.: 590224/201 I Second Third -Party Plaint ill, - Bg a i 11st - For I 1ai 11ti f h : Silhowilz, G i i i d o L i , Silhowitz, Schntz cP~Frederick, LLP 25 Wust il3Id Sli-cc:L,Suitc 7I I Ncw Yorlc, N Y 10036 1;oi- i hird-Party Plninlil fi : Wilson, Elsci-, Moskowitz, Edclmaii I S O I+it 42 Street New Yolk, NY 100 17-S630 t ilpc~-sconsidcrud in i w i e w 01- this iiiotioii h i - summuiy judgmeril: Noting of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . l All ol Suppoi-L. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2 A f T i n I h i t e d Opp . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .Notice of Chss-Motion . . . . . . . 4 Aff in Opp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 h4cm ol I,aw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Keply Aft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..7 Dicker L L P &Yw@. e 6; P.>. I , I,, ; R . , >: , 1 2- , B , ,! ~ ,,J (y-Jl2 , I l U N , SALIANN SCAKPULLA, J.: 111t h i s ;c 1i 0 1 I for in clci n 11 1c:at i 01 I niid I i1 GO n t r i bution, 2 d c fen d iint s/t h i I-d-part y p 1ai nt i ffs [* 4] Realty Trust ( Vornado Realty ) aricl Vornado Slimandoah Holdings, T,T,C ( Vornado Sheiiaiidouh ) iiiove pursuant to C PILK 32 12. for sulnmary .judgment ( I ) oii Strawberry Storcs and VNO x third party-claims against third-party clelmdant 1;Iorin Painting, Inc. ( T;lorin ) for contraclual indeniiiity, including all costs and attorney s i ccs; (2) OII St rawherry Stores ant1 V NO S cross-claiiii s agai nsl del cnd ant/sccond third-party p Iai nti ff Alexandcr W o l l & Sori a/l;/a A.W. & S . C onstruction C o., Inc. ( Alcxiinder Wolf ) for coi~inio~i iridemnity, inclirding all costs : i d attorney s fees; and (3) to clisriiiss the law coiiiplainl against Manhattan Ma11 Eat, Vorriado Rcalty aiicl Vornado Shcnandoah. Alesmder Wolf c.ross-moves for conditional sirmmary judgment on its second third-party clnini for contractud indemnity agaiiist Florin, This action arises out oi pcrsoniil injuries phintiff Michacl C asalini ( C asalini ) sustained on November 2 I , 2008 whcn he slipped aiid fell on debris while working on pro-jcct (the pro~ject ) renovate to : Strawberry i B Slore (the premises ). l hestore was located in the Manhattan Mall at 100 West 33 Streel in Manhattan. VNO owns the iin premises and Slrawberry Storcs is its lcniint. At the time, C asalini w ~ i s cmployw o C Ib lorin, which was perti~mirig work OII the projccl pursuant l o ; subcontractor agrccmcnl i (the Agreeiiieiit ) with Alexander Wull, the project s g ~ n c r a contractor. Paragraph lbiir l of the Agrecriicnt states: [Florin] agrees 10 indciiinify, clcfcnd and hold Iiariiiless [AIcsancler Wolf], Owner and any other person or ciitily whom I Alexander WoItl is required to defend, indeinnify aiid hold l~arriiless and/or for wlioiii [Aleexaricler Wolf] is perforining wurk, their tenants, mortgages, officers, directors, agent.s, employees and partners 3 [* 5] and each of tliein (tiercinaficr Indcmnilces ), from any and all claims, suits, damagcs, liabilities, profcssional fces (inclirding at torncys fees), costs, disburscments, cxpcnses niicl losscs of cvcry kind (hcrcinalicr C laims ), includiig lower tier tlioxc brought by any eiiiploycc of [Florin], its sub-contr~zclors, coiitractors o r suppliers, arising from or rclated to death, personal in jurics, property clamagc (inclucling loss of use thereof) and/or advertisiiig injury brought against any ofthe Incleinnitccs, arising from, in coiiiiectioii with or as a result of pcrli)rin;ince of Subcontractor s work hercundcr (including m y additional, e x t or ~ ;idd-ori work) or cleliveiy of its rnatcrials, whether or not caiised in wliolc or in pari by [Florin I or its \lib-contractors, supplicrs or lowcr tier coiitractors. C axaliiii ~ o ~ i i ~ i i c i i this action ccd C C I I I ~ I I I Claw ~ iii Fe17riiaty, 20 10, assertiiig cn~iscs action for of iiegligcncc and various Labor Law and Industrial Code violations against Manh;tttan Mall 1 ?at, Strawberry Stores, VNO, Vornado Realty and Vornado Shenandoah (wllectively clefciidnnts ). In 1heir Answers, M n a tan Mall Eat, Strawberry Stores, aht VNC), Vornado Racalty and Voriiado Shenandoah asserted cross-claims agaiiist Alexander Wolf for coiiiiiioii law indcmniilcation. In June, 20 IO, Manhattan Mall Eat, S tra w b erry S t ores, V N C) , V or ii a cl o R aca 1t an cl Vo 1-11ad o SI lei 1 ai i clo nI i c o 111 111en c ecl n t hi r cl y party agaiiist Ib loriii for in~lcniiiificatioii,coiitri tmtion, and breach of contract. Thcrcaftcr, Alcsnndcr Wolf commenced ii second third-party action against 1;lorin Ihr indemni f j cat i 011 and contribution. At liis dcpositioii, Cnsalini tcstificd that at approxiiiiately I0:30 or 11 :OO A.M on thc clatc of his accident, hc wits lxinging wallpaper at the preinises. Afler stepping oll ii laddcr, c ;isalini tirrncd around to looh nt his work, took three steps and slipped on iz pile of debris, causing liiiii to fall and sustniri injuries to his right wrisl and Iiand. C asalini testilied h i t 11ie pile ol debris consisted ol trash, 4 ii small pipe arid some wiring [* 6] According to C asalini, the debris had not been there when he began hanging wallpaper fi ft ccii 111in 11t es ciir l i cr , V I 11 CI I t B iirt c)1o i i i u cc:i ( H arto 1oi i i uc c i ) , C asa 1 i 11i s c o- w or lc er w h o w i u w j t I i h i i i i c 011 tlie I dntc of the accidcnt, also testified at his dcposition that Casalini slipped on ii pile of debris after coming down from the ladder. Bartoloiiiucci tcstilied that workers on thc project would throw their clcbris on the ground after. eating. A pr(>-icct nianager wilh Alexander Woll , Keviri Walter ( Walter ), tcstilkd that Alexnnclcr Wolf was respnsiiblc for removiiig debris l rom thc work site. According to Walter, Alcxander Wolf did riot have ;I set sclieclulc for removing the debris, but would du so c)ii ;in as-neecled hasis. Walter liirther lestificd that employees of varioirs siibconlracturs wcrc working at the premises r)ii the day ul Vasal iiii s accident. VNO and Stawbcrry Stores now iiiove lor sumiiiaiy jLrdgineiit on their contractual indemnity claims against Florin, arguing that the Agreemcnt is unmibiguous and entitles them to lid1 indemnity for their costs in dcf eiiding this action. V N O and Stnwbcriy Stores also argue that they iirc entitlcd to summary judgmcnt on h e i r comiiioii law indemnity cross-claims agairirt Alcxander Wolf hecausc Walter testifjecl that A1cx;inder Wolf war rcsponsiblc for cleariiig debris, and hecnusc VNO m t l Stawheriy Storcs did not supervise or contrul C asalini s work site. 1 Iius, their puteiilial liability ariscs solcly from Alexander Wolf s ncgligence. T ~ s t l yManlialtaii Mall Eat, Vornadu liealty and Vornado , Shenaiidoali niaintain tlint the C ourt shoirld dismi5s the coiiiplaint in its critircly againsl 5 [* 7] them hccause they did not own, operate, ii-raiiage,maiiitaiii, control or repair the preiiiiscs on the dale OF Casnlini s accidenl. On its cross-molion for suriimary .j irdgmeiil 011 tlic contractual irideiiinity claim against Florin, Alexandcr Wolf adopts Strawtierry s aiicl VNO s argument that the plain wording ol thc Agreement is unainbigu~~is entitles Alexander Wolf to lid1 iiideiiiiiity and lor the cosls in defending this action. In opposition lo Strnwbcriy s and VNO s suinmary jiiclgment motion oii thcir cross-claiiiis, Alcxuider Wolf argues that Strawbcrry and VNO have lhiled to cstablish that Alcxander Wolf was ncgligent to wiiiiiio~i law iis ii iiiatter o f law, a prcdicate indcmni h a t i o n . Alcxander Wolf points oul tlierc is 1 1 0 evidence Ilia1 it was ricgligerit in hiling to clear thc pile of debris that ;illcgedly mused Casalini s acciden 1. In opposition to dekndants inotions for summary j[rdgiiicrit on the contradiial itidcinriity clainis, b lorin maintains lhat it is not rcquired to indemnify clefendanis becawc thcre is no cvideiice that Florin s :ictccI negligently. l hemotioii for s~.riiiiiiaiy judgiiiciit dismissing llic complaint as to Voriiado Rcalty and Voriiado Shcnandoah is unopposccl. Disc 11 ssi o11 A movant seeking summary judgment 1n1rst make I: yrimcr fiicie showilig of entitleinerit to .iudgemcnt as a. mattcr of law, offering sufficient evidence IO cliinirintc any material issues ol I act. W i / w q m /v.N e w York Ui7iv. Md.C3.. , 64 h N.Y 85 1, 853 .%I [* 8] ( 1985). Once 21 showing has bccn inadc, the burden shills lo the opposing party, who must llieii cleiiioiistratc tlic existence of a triable issue of fact. A1vur.e~ P r o s p c t Hosp., v. 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 (1986); %ucker/~iu/7 C i t y of Nrw I wk, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980). v. TTcrc, Strriwbcrry Stores, V.NO aiicl Alexmder Wolf liave macle n pririuijiwit~ showing ol entitlement l o sur~ininry @igmcnt on thcir contractual indcmnity claims against FJoriii. The Agi-ecmcnl stalcs thal 1;lorin is reqiiired to indemnilj/ Alexander Woll: as well i.ts any property owner or tenant for whoin Alusander Wolf was pcrrfi7rliiiiig work, lor cosls in clelending persoiial injury actions arising from, RS iii coiinectioii with or n result of pcrformancc of Florin s work. The partics do riot dispulc that Alexunder Wolf was perlimning work for Strawberry Storcs, or that V-NO owned tlic preiniss. Ftirtlicr, tho iincontl-ovcrlcd widerice shows that Casaliiii s allegations x i s c from Florin s work cm the prc),jccl, iis C asdini testilled 1ha.t lie was injured while atlumptirig to vicw work he had .just compJelec1 tbr Florin. Strawburry Stores, I liough Florin maintains that it is not required to indemni~y VNO or Alexander Wolf because there is 110 cvidence that Florin clcted negligcntly, lhc Agrcciiicnt rcqiiircs Florin to indciiinify Strawhcrry Stores, VNU and Alexander Wolf reg a rd 1cs s o I- w h ct 1i er F I or in s ri eg J i genc e c nus ed Casa1i r i i s i 11 j 11r i cs . A ccc) rd ing1y , as the plain wording of the Agreement is ~.rnambiguoirs, Court grants sulnmary .j irdgmcnt on tho Strawberry Stores, VNCI s arid Alexander Wolf s contractual indeninity claims ngaiiist : Florin. S r e L(rook/icrvcvi .Meuioipi(r/ Ho.sp. Medical Cerilcr, ltrc. v. C o i u i ~ qf ,Sz!ffhlk, 1 5 S 7 [* 9] A.L).2cl 404, 400-07 I.)ept. 1989) (granting suiiiiiiaryjuclgnient o n indemnity claim (2d where :igrcei~icnlto indemnify was Lunaiiibiguoiis on its Licc ). I lowevcr, V N O and Strawberry Stores have failed to make the required showing crititlirig them to c o ~ i i ~ ~ law indcniriity against Alexander Wolf. When an owner is ion liable [or inji.iries solely by virtue of its ownership of the premises, and lacks siipervision or ~onh-ol over- the work that is heing perforrl-led, the owner is cntitlcd to coiii~norilaw indemnity from the party whose negligence caused the plaintill s accidcnl. Srr ( i ~ m z m 1). Hciven Plcrzr-r Hoi~sing Drv. Fzm Co.. 69 N.Y.%I 559, 568 ( 1987). Though Alesaxider Wolf iiiay have been responsible for removing debris fioiii the work sitc, V N C ) :ind Strawbcriy Storcs havc fiiilcd to show that Alexander Woll wiis negligent in l-ailiiag to reiiiove the deliris that allegedly causcd Clasnlini s accicleiit. Casalini tcstilicd that the debris wits not tlicrc tiftccii iiiiiiutes !>ehrc tlic accidcnl. Fiirthcr, there is 110 evidence in the record that Alexandcr Wolf liacl riotice of, or creatcd, the pile oi dcbris. S w W y m v. S l c z l ~ 53 A.lI.3cl 056, 657 ( I ljcpt. 20 I O). I l~iis, ~ , VNO s md Strawberry Storcs motion is denied i n s o h as it scclis s~irninary judgment on the coinmoii law indcmniticntion claim against Alexandcr Wolf. In : i c c ~ ) i d i i n with tlic forcgoins, it i s hereby c~ (.)IIl.)EREL) that tlic motion for suriiiiiary j udgment by dcfeiidants/tliird-pal-ty plaintil l s Manhattan Mall .Eat, T,J.,C , Strawberry Storcs, Tiic., V N O 100 Wcst 33rd Street, Flw Court also notes that Clasaliiii s hospital records, wliicli stale Ilia1 hc fcll off the lacldcr, cnntraclict C:asalini s Ieshiiuny a i d cr-catc an issue ol hct a s to the caiisr ol his injurics. 8 [* 10] LLC, V o n i d o Realty rrusl arid V(mi:ido Shenandoal-1I-loldings, 1 , K is granted insol-ir as VNO I00 West 33 Strcct, L I L and Ciiinstraw, LLC s/h/a Strawberry Stores, 1x1~. arc entitled to coritractual indeiiiniilcation, includiiig all costs and attorney s fccs, againsl third-party dcf cndant Florin Painting, IIIC., and thc complaiiit is clisrnisscd willioiii opposition agniiist Manhattan Mall Eat, I,Lc , Voniado Rcally Trirsl and Vornado Shenaiicloah I Ioldings, ILI ,I{, and the motion is olhcrwisc denied; a i d it is furthcr third-parly plainlift Alesander Wolf & Son a/k/a A. W. & S . C onstruction Co., Tnc. 011 its contrnctual indcmnity cause of- action against Florin Painting, Inc. is granted; and it is O I C I )ERE11 that the C lerk o f the Cloirrt is directed to scvcr m d critcr judgment dismissing the complaint as to Vurnaclo Realty I rustand Vornado Shenandoah Holdings, I LC.; accordingly . Thisconstitutes the decision and order ol the court. Dated: New York, Ncw York .Iuly 12, 20 I2 pp: I;,:, IF E 1;. .+ ,:,?, JCl1 ) E N I I ( K: .I:.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.